What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4817497?

The tribunal order states: This tenancy ended on 16 February 2024 when the tenant surrendered the

How much money was awarded in case 4817497?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $508.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $541.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817497?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817497?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10320456-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4817497?

The tribunal order states: This tenancy ended on 16 February 2024 when the tenant surrendered the

How much money was awarded in case 4817497?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $508.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $541.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817497?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817497?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10320456-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Glassworks Road, Newland, RD 2, Ashburton 7772 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4817497 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817497 — net $2,878.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 February 2024	$541.43	Rent arrears to 16 February 2024
Power	$508.37	Power
Woodwork damage	$1,000.00	Woodwork damage
Lock/key replacement	$143.75	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Replacement door	$195.00	Replacement door
Light bulbs	$100.00	Light bulbs
Wall damage - blue bedroom	$20.00	Wall damage - blue bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,878.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,878.99

Order

This tenancy ended on 16 February 2024 when the tenant surrendered the tenancy to the landlord and the landlord accepted the surrender.
April Louise Snell to pay Julie McDonald Loftus $2,878.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
There is no order in relation to the landlord’s claim for damage to the ride on lawn mower or for lawn mowing because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The landlord’s other claims have either been withdrawn or are dismissed for the

Reasons

given below.

The landlord may dispose of the tenant’s belongings left at the premises as she sees fit.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5321979-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Julie McDonald Loftus: $2,878.99 April Louise Snell: $121.01 DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 16 February 2024$541.43 Power$508.37 Woodwork damage$1,000.00 Lock/key replacement$143.75 Cleaning$350.00 Replacement door$195.00 Light bulbs$100.00 Wall damage - blue bedroom$20.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,878.99 Bond$2,878.99$121.01 Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone. The tenant attended in person.
The application was made by Edgewood Solutions Limited as agent for the landlord, but I have named only the landlord in this order. The Tribunal will often include the name of the agent for enforcement purposes but that is not required here because the agent is the landlord’s own property management company.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 16 February 2024 and on the amount of rent arrears as ordered. The landlord provided rent records in support. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the tribunal will consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Withdrawn
The landlord withdrew the claims for damage to lounge drapes, carpet damage, rubbish removal and damage to a door in the sum of $275. Claims Agreed
As well as the rent arrears, the parties agreed the awards for locks, cleaning, the replacement door, lightbulbs and the hole in the wall. Other Claims Woodwork Damage
There was damage to woodwork in the premises during the tenancy. It included doors, skirtings and door frames. Most of the damage was caused by the tenant’s dog. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepted liability for the damage.
The claim was originally for $18,699 based on an estimate to repair the damage. The landlord has repaired some of the damage and some of the damage has not been repaired. The landlord has agreed to sell the premises and there is a conditional contract for sale and purchase.
The landlord said that the sale price has been diminished by the damage. She suggested that the reduction would be at least $50,000 due to the buyer’s perception of the damage. That seems unlikely when the cost of fully repairing the damage is less than $20,000. There was, in any case, no extrinsic evidence to support an effect on the sale price.
The landlord produced photographs showing the damage. Many of them showed the same door which has been replaced and I have made an award for that. The photographs show five other distinct areas of damage.
These areas are, in my view, capable of being repaired to a reasonable standard. To be clear, I would not have accepted the landlord’s repair estimate as a reasonable cost to remediate the damage. The woodwork is original from the 1950s and its condition is commensurate with its age, apart from the admitted damage.
I am therefore left to assess reasonable compensation for the damage. I do so on the basis that it’s likely that the landlord will carry out the repairs by filling, sanding and coating with varnish.
In my assessment an award of $1,000 is appropriate. Power Charges
The power account was in the landlord’s name. She has provided copies of the power accounts for the tenancy period and a reconciliation with the payments made by the tenant. These were sent to the tenant for comment, and she has not responded.
I therefore accept the landlord’s calculation of the sum due from the tenant subject to a reduction of $78.28 because the final account included a period after the tenancy had ended. The sum due is therefore $508.37. Pool Robot
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant carelessly damaged the pool robot and so the claim must be dismissed. There was some detritus found in the workings of the robot and the landlord claims the cost of assessing the robot and clearing it. This is on the basis that the tenant should have done so. But if that is correct, there seems no reason why the landlord could not have cleared it herself. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the robot was working at the end of the tenancy. Damage by Mice
The claims relating to an infestation of mice in the premises are dismissed. There was no evidence of mice infestation during the tenancy and there was no evidence that the tenant was responsible for an infestation at the end of the tenancy. Ranch Slider Locking Mechanism
The landlord claims the cost of replacing the locking mechanism for the ranch slider door. The landlord said that it was found to be missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the door was able to be locked right up to the end of the tenancy and she knows nothing about the missing lock mechanism.
I accept the tenant’s evidence. I found her to be honest and straightforward. She made concessions during the hearing in relation to claims that she could have disputed.
I find it unlikely that the tenant would remove the lock mechanism. She would have no reason to do so, and it would be inconsistent with her conduct generally as the tenant. There had been a problem with the locking mechanism in January 2024 which the landlord’s husband had attended to. Possibly that problem resurfaced and that could explain the absence of the mechanism. Ride On Lawn Mower
The landlord claims the cost of repairing the ride on lawn mower.
From the details on the invoice in the sum of $1,587.23, most of it appears to be maintenance rather than repair. That aside, the mower was stored in a garage which was not part of the tenancy, and the mower was not a chattel provided for the tenant’s use. It was therefore outside the tenancy and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine a claim in relation to it.
For completeness, I would have accepted the tenant’s evidence that she did not interfere with the mower, and she did not know anything about how it was damaged. Lawn Mowing Invoice
The landlord sought to recover an unpaid invoice due from the tenant to a gardening firm. That is between the firm and the tenant. The landlord has no standing to make the claim and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it. Filing Fee
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee. Result
The bond has been split between the landlord to meet the tenant’s liability and the balance to be paid to the tenant. Suppression
I decline the landlord’s application for suppression. She has been far from fully successful, and I see no good reason for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817497 — net $2,878.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 February 2024	$541.43	Rent arrears to 16 February 2024
Power	$508.37	Power
Woodwork damage	$1,000.00	Woodwork damage
Lock/key replacement	$143.75	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Replacement door	$195.00	Replacement door
Light bulbs	$100.00	Light bulbs
Wall damage - blue bedroom	$20.00	Wall damage - blue bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,878.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,878.99

Order

This tenancy ended on 16 February 2024 when the tenant surrendered the tenancy to the landlord and the landlord accepted the surrender.
April Louise Snell to pay Julie McDonald Loftus $2,878.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
There is no order in relation to the landlord’s claim for damage to the ride on lawn mower or for lawn mowing because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The landlord’s other claims have either been withdrawn or are dismissed for the

Reasons

given below.

The landlord may dispose of the tenant’s belongings left at the premises as she sees fit.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5321979-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Julie McDonald Loftus: $2,878.99 April Louise Snell: $121.01 DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 16 February 2024$541.43 Power$508.37 Woodwork damage$1,000.00 Lock/key replacement$143.75 Cleaning$350.00 Replacement door$195.00 Light bulbs$100.00 Wall damage - blue bedroom$20.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,878.99 Bond$2,878.99$121.01 Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone. The tenant attended in person.
The application was made by Edgewood Solutions Limited as agent for the landlord, but I have named only the landlord in this order. The Tribunal will often include the name of the agent for enforcement purposes but that is not required here because the agent is the landlord’s own property management company.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 16 February 2024 and on the amount of rent arrears as ordered. The landlord provided rent records in support. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the tribunal will consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Withdrawn
The landlord withdrew the claims for damage to lounge drapes, carpet damage, rubbish removal and damage to a door in the sum of $275. Claims Agreed
As well as the rent arrears, the parties agreed the awards for locks, cleaning, the replacement door, lightbulbs and the hole in the wall. Other Claims Woodwork Damage
There was damage to woodwork in the premises during the tenancy. It included doors, skirtings and door frames. Most of the damage was caused by the tenant’s dog. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepted liability for the damage.
The claim was originally for $18,699 based on an estimate to repair the damage. The landlord has repaired some of the damage and some of the damage has not been repaired. The landlord has agreed to sell the premises and there is a conditional contract for sale and purchase.
The landlord said that the sale price has been diminished by the damage. She suggested that the reduction would be at least $50,000 due to the buyer’s perception of the damage. That seems unlikely when the cost of fully repairing the damage is less than $20,000. There was, in any case, no extrinsic evidence to support an effect on the sale price.
The landlord produced photographs showing the damage. Many of them showed the same door which has been replaced and I have made an award for that. The photographs show five other distinct areas of damage.
These areas are, in my view, capable of being repaired to a reasonable standard. To be clear, I would not have accepted the landlord’s repair estimate as a reasonable cost to remediate the damage. The woodwork is original from the 1950s and its condition is commensurate with its age, apart from the admitted damage.
I am therefore left to assess reasonable compensation for the damage. I do so on the basis that it’s likely that the landlord will carry out the repairs by filling, sanding and coating with varnish.
In my assessment an award of $1,000 is appropriate. Power Charges
The power account was in the landlord’s name. She has provided copies of the power accounts for the tenancy period and a reconciliation with the payments made by the tenant. These were sent to the tenant for comment, and she has not responded.
I therefore accept the landlord’s calculation of the sum due from the tenant subject to a reduction of $78.28 because the final account included a period after the tenancy had ended. The sum due is therefore $508.37. Pool Robot
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant carelessly damaged the pool robot and so the claim must be dismissed. There was some detritus found in the workings of the robot and the landlord claims the cost of assessing the robot and clearing it. This is on the basis that the tenant should have done so. But if that is correct, there seems no reason why the landlord could not have cleared it herself. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the robot was working at the end of the tenancy. Damage by Mice
The claims relating to an infestation of mice in the premises are dismissed. There was no evidence of mice infestation during the tenancy and there was no evidence that the tenant was responsible for an infestation at the end of the tenancy. Ranch Slider Locking Mechanism
The landlord claims the cost of replacing the locking mechanism for the ranch slider door. The landlord said that it was found to be missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the door was able to be locked right up to the end of the tenancy and she knows nothing about the missing lock mechanism.
I accept the tenant’s evidence. I found her to be honest and straightforward. She made concessions during the hearing in relation to claims that she could have disputed.
I find it unlikely that the tenant would remove the lock mechanism. She would have no reason to do so, and it would be inconsistent with her conduct generally as the tenant. There had been a problem with the locking mechanism in January 2024 which the landlord’s husband had attended to. Possibly that problem resurfaced and that could explain the absence of the mechanism. Ride On Lawn Mower
The landlord claims the cost of repairing the ride on lawn mower.
From the details on the invoice in the sum of $1,587.23, most of it appears to be maintenance rather than repair. That aside, the mower was stored in a garage which was not part of the tenancy, and the mower was not a chattel provided for the tenant’s use. It was therefore outside the tenancy and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine a claim in relation to it.
For completeness, I would have accepted the tenant’s evidence that she did not interfere with the mower, and she did not know anything about how it was damaged. Lawn Mowing Invoice
The landlord sought to recover an unpaid invoice due from the tenant to a gardening firm. That is between the firm and the tenant. The landlord has no standing to make the claim and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it. Filing Fee
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee. Result
The bond has been split between the landlord to meet the tenant’s liability and the balance to be paid to the tenant. Suppression
I decline the landlord’s application for suppression. She has been far from fully successful, and I see no good reason for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817497 — Property damage at 61 Glassworks Road, Newland, RD 2, Ashburton 7772

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817497 — Property damage at 61 Glassworks Road, Newland, RD 2, Ashburton 7772

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions